Order Code RL32941
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
State and Local Homeland Security:
Unresolved Issues for the 109th Congress
June 9, 2005
Shawn Reese
Analyst in American National Government
Government and Finance Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress
State and Local Homeland Security:
Unresolved Issues for the 109th Congress
Summary
Arguably, the three most important homeland security public laws enacted
following the terrorist attacks on September 2001 are: P.L. 107-56, “Uniting and
Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and
Obstruct Terrorism Act (USA PATRIOT Act)”; P.L. 107-296, “Homeland Security
Act of 2002"; and P.L. 108-458, “Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act
of 2004.” The PATRIOT Act focused on enhancing domestic security through anti-
terrorism measures, specifically, law enforcement and legal responses to terrorism.
The Homeland Security Act established the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS), and the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act restructured the
U.S. intelligence community to better assist in terrorism preparedness and response.
These key laws not withstanding, a host of important state and local homeland
security policy issues remain, which the 109th Congress might address. Some of the
issues include reportedly unmet emergency responder needs; the proposed reduction
in appropriations for federal homeland security assistance; the determination of state
and local homeland security risk assessment factors; the absence of emergency
responder equipment standards; the development of state and local homeland security
strategies; and the limited number of state and local officials with security clearances.
A case could be made that the primary state and local homeland security issue
is the reportedly unfair and inadequate distribution of federal homeland security
assistance; this report, however, does not address that issue. For information
concerning FY2005 homeland security grant allocations and a discussion of federal
homeland security assistance distribution formulas, see CRS Report RL32696, Fiscal
Year 2005 Homeland Security Grant Program: State Allocations and Issues for
Congressional Oversight. For a comparison of current legislative actions on
homeland security distribution formulas, see CRS Report RL32892, Homeland
Security Grant Formulas: A Comparison of Formula Provisions in S. 21 and H.R.
1544, 109th Congress.
The report will be updated as congressional actions warrant.
Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Emergency Responder Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Hiring and Retention of Personnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Interoperable Communications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Reduction in Federal Homeland Security Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Determining State and Local Homeland Security Risk Assessment
Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Homeland Security Equipment Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
State Homeland Security Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
State and Local Official Security Clearances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
List of Tables
Table 1. FY2005-FY2006 Federal Homeland Security Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
State and Local Homeland Security:
Unresolved Issues for the 109th Congress
Introduction
Arguably, the three most important homeland security public laws enacted
following the terrorist attacks on September 2001 are: P.L. 107-56, “Uniting and
Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and
Obstruct Terrorism Act (USA PATRIOT Act)”; P.L. 107-296, “Homeland Security
Act of 2002"; and P.L. 108-458, “Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act
of 2004.” The PATRIOT Act focused on enhancing domestic security through anti-
terrorism measures, specifically, law enforcement and legal responses to terrorism.
The Homeland Security Act established the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS), and the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act restructured the
U.S. intelligence community to better assist in terrorism preparedness and response.
Numerous other recently enacted public laws address homeland security issues
such as:
! transportation security;1
! border security;2
! bioterrorism;3
! maritime security;4 and
! terrorism insurance.5
These key laws not withstanding, a host of important state and local homeland
security policy issues remain, which the 109th Congress might address. Some of the
issues include reportedly unmet emergency responder needs; the proposed reduction
in appropriations for federal homeland security assistance; the determination of state
and local homeland security risk assessment factors; the absence of emergency
responder equipment standards; the development of state and local homeland security
strategies; and the limited number of state and local officials with security clearances.
1 P.L. 107-71, “Aviation and Transportation Security Act.”
2 P.L. 107-173, “Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act, 2002.”
3 P.L. 107-188, “Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act,
2002.”
4 P.L. 107-295, “Maritime Transportation Antiterrorism Act, 2002.”
5 P.L. 107-297, “Terrorism Risk Insurance Act, 2002.”
CRS-2
The state and local homeland security issues may be deemed important because
they arguably identify critical homeland security needs and policy questions that have
not been fully addressed since September 2001.
One could argue that the primary state and local homeland security issue is the
widely reported unfair and inadequate distribution of federal homeland security
assistance; this report, however, does not address that issue. For information
concerning FY2005 homeland security grant allocations and a discussion of federal
homeland security assistance distribution formulas, see CRS Report RL32696, Fiscal
Year 2005 Homeland Security Grant Program: State Allocations and Issues for
Congressional Oversight. For a comparison of current legislative actions on
homeland security distribution formulas, see CRS Report RL32892, Homeland
Security Grant Formulas: A Comparison of Formula Provisions in S. 21 and H.R.
1544, 109th Congress.
Emergency Responder Needs
The FY2005 Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP) guidelines, which
include guidance for the State Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSGP), the
Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI), the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention
Program (LETPP), the Emergency Management Performance Grant Program
(EMPG), and the Citizen Corps Programs (CCP), provide a list of authorized
equipment, training courses, exercises, and planning activities that states and
localities can purchase with grant allocations.6 Observers note, however, that the list
of authorized expenditures does not adequately address the two most important
(according to emergency responders) needs — hiring and retention of personnel, and
interoperable communications.
Hiring and Retention of Personnel. Hiring and retention of emergency
responder personnel (including law enforcement personnel, fire and emergency
medical service personnel, and emergency managers) is not an authorized HSGP
expenditure. State and local law enforcement agencies receive federal hiring and
retention funding, however, through the Department of Justice (DOJ) Community-
Oriented Policing Services (COPS) and Justice Assistance Grant Program (JAG).7
Fire departments receive hiring and retention funding through the Staffing for
Adequate Fire and Emergency Response Grant Program (SAFER).8
State and local government officials and emergency responders have stated that
the hiring and retention of personnel is one of their principal homeland security
needs. Ten months after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Alexander Knopp,
6 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office for Domestic Preparedness, Fiscal Year
2005 Homeland Security Grant Program: Program Guidelines and Application Kit
(Washington: Nov. 2004).
7 In FY2005, DOJ combined the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Program and the
Byrne Memorial Grant Program into JAG.
8 In FY2005, Congress appropriated $65 million for SAFER in P.L. 108-334 (FY2005 DHS
appropriations).
CRS-3
Mayor of Norwalk, Connecticut, testified before the House Committee on
Government Reform’s Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats, and
International Relations. Mayor Knopp stated that federal funding was needed to
expand the number of firefighters and police officers to assist in terrorism
preparedness and response.9 At the same hearing, Christopher J. Lynch, New
Cannan, Connecticut, chief of police, stated that emergency responder agencies
needed to increase volunteer staff due to the lack of funding for hiring new
personnel.10 In January 2005, 50 House of Representatives Members sent a
bipartisan letter to the President asking for a significant increase in the
Administration’s FY2006 budget for the hiring of first responders.11
On May 1, 2003, former DHS Secretary Tom Ridge testified before the Senate
Governmental Affairs Committee that it was not the federal government’s role to pay
the salaries of state and local employees.12 Even with the testimony of state and local
officials, DHS continues to prohibit the use of federal homeland security funding for
the hiring and retention of emergency responder personnel.
With the increased role state and local personnel have in homeland security
activities, Congress might consider authorizing the use of federal homeland security
assistance funding for hiring and retaining emergency responders. One might argue
that without a sufficient number of emergency responder personnel, states and
localities might have difficulties performing day-to-day operations and responding
to homeland security emergencies.
On the same subject, in February 2005, the Administration proposed in its
FY2006 budget request to reduce funding for COPS and eliminate JAG.13 On
February 7, 2005, the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) released
a press statement announcing its displeasure with the Administration’s proposal.14
The proposed cut in COPS funding and the elimination of JAG could further reduce
state and local homeland security capabilities by reducing the amount of federal
funding used to hire and retain emergency responders.
9 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Government Reform, Subcommittee on National
Security, Emerging Threats, and International Relations, Homeland Security: Keeping First
Responders First, 107th Cong., 2nd sess., hearing, July 30, 2002 (Washington: GPO, 2003),
p. 31.
10 Ibid., p. 48.
11 “Representative Abercrombe Requests First Responders Grants Restored to Police,
Firefighters,” U.S. Federal News, Feb. 28, 2005. See also, “Representative Tierney
Spearheads Efforts for First Responder Funding in Fiscal 2006 Budget,” U.S. Federal News,
Jan. 12, 2005.
12 U.S. Congress, Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, Investing in Homeland Security:
Streamlining and Enhancing Homeland Security Grant Programs, 108th Cong., 1st sess.,
hearing, May 1, 2003, (Washington: GPO, 2003).
13 U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Fiscal Year 2006 Budget of the United States
Government (Washington: GPO, 2005), Appendix, p. 708.
14 International Association of Police Chiefs, “Police Chiefs Decry Deep Budget Cuts That
Would Make Communities More Vulnerable,” press release, Feb. 7, 2005.
CRS-4
One bill in the 109th Congress, passed by the House on May 12, 2005, H.R.
1544, “Faster and Smarter Funding for First Responders Act of 2005,” and another
bill, reported on April 12, 2005, by the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs Committee, S. 21, “Homeland Security Enhancement Act of 2005,” propose
to provide funding for overtime expenses related to homeland security activities.
Neither bill, however, authorizes federal homeland security funding to be used for
the hiring and retention of emergency responders.
Interoperable Communications. According to a National Governors
Association (NGA) survey conducted in August 2004, only 22% of the states that
responded have developed statewide interoperability communications, while 73% of
those that responded stated they are still in the process of developing
interoperability.15 On June 15, 2003, IACP released a list of anti-terror needs, and
stated that one of their priorities is interoperable communications among all
emergency responder entities.16
The FY2005 HSGP guidelines authorize states and localities to purchase
communications equipment.17 Interoperable communications equipment, however,
is but one of many types of equipment on the DHS Authorized Equipment List
(AEL). Even with this funding source, NGA states:
Developing statewide interoperability for emergency responders is the chief
priority, and states are working diligently to bolster this capacity. Many are
struggling with the dual challenges of funding and time. States must either
replace outdated equipment with new models, or install software that allows
incompatible equipment throughout the state to communicate with each other.18
Additionally, NGA stated that the survey respondents indicated that additional grant
funding would facilitate the acquisition of new technology to enable
interoperability.19
One might assume that because DHS has not provided a separate funding source
or a specific amount of grant funding for communications equipment, the department
does not recognize the state and local need for interoperable communications. This
assumption, however, does not address the issue of state and local governments’
responsibility for prioritizing their homeland security needs.
15 National Governors Association, “Homeland Security in the States: Much Progress, More
Work,” issue brief, Jan. 24, 2005.
16 International Association of Police Chiefs, “Police Chiefs Offer Priority List of Anti-
Terror Needs,” press release, June 15, 2003.
17 Fiscal Year 2005 Homeland Security Grant Program: Program Guidelines and
Application Kit (Washington: Nov. 2004).
18 “Homeland Security in the States: Much Progress, More Work,” issue brief, Jan. 24,
2005, p. 5.
19 Ibid., p. 4.
CRS-5
The House Appropriations Committee recommends, in H.R. 2360 (FY2006
DHS appropriations), a total of $3.19 billion for federal homeland security assistance,
a reduction of $420 million from FY2005 funding (see Table 1). This proposed
reduction includes $350 million less for SHSGP than was appropriated in FY2005.20
SHSGP is the primary program states use to fund interoperable communications.
The ability of emergency responders to communicate has been identified as one of
the primary national priorities in the National Preparedness Goal.21 The proposed
reduction in funding could result in states and localities not funding interoperable
communications at the level needed to meet the national priority of strengthening this
capability.
Reduction in Federal Homeland Security Assistance
The reduction of federal homeland security assistance funding is another
homeland security issue states and localities face. In FY2005, Congress appropriated
approximately $3.61 billion for state and local homeland security assistance.22 In the
FY2006 budget request, the Administration proposes a total of $3.36 billion for
federal homeland security assistance, a reduction of $250 million from FY2005
funding. Additionally, the FY2006 budget request provides no line item funding for
the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program (LETPP). It proposes, however,
to direct states and localities to allocate no less than 20% of SHSGP and UASI
funding for LETTP activities.23 Apparently, this would be a reduction in SHSGP and
UASI funding for equipment, training, exercises, and planning, which states and
localities were authorized to fund with 100% of their allocated amount in FY2005.
One could argue that the proposed overall funding reduction of $250 million and the
Administration’s requirement for states and localities to allocate no less than 20% of
their SHSGP and UASI funding to LETPP activities would represent a further
reduction of funding for state and local homeland security activities.
The Administration’s budget proposal requests $500 million for FIRE in
FY2006, a cut of 30% from the FY2005 appropriated level. Priority would be given
to grant applications enhancing counter-terrorism capabilities. Grants would be
available only for training, vehicle acquisition, firefighting equipment, and personal
protective equipment. Under the budget proposal, activities such as wellness/fitness
and fire station modification would not be funded. Activities such as prevention,
public fire safety education and awareness, and fire code enforcement would be
funded under a separate fire prevention and firefighter safety grant program. For
FY2006, the Administration is requesting no funding of the Staffing for Adequate
20 House Appropriations Committee Homeland Security tables of Mar. 15, 2005,
accompanying H.R. 2360.
21 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Interim National Preparedness Goal
(Washington: Mar. 2005), p. 13. For further information on the National Preparedness Goal,
see CRS Report RL32803, The National Preparedness System: Issues in the 109th Congress,
by Keith Bea.
22 P.L. 108-334, Title III, FY2005 DHS appropriations.
23 Fiscal Year 2006 Budget of the United States Government (Washington: GPO, 2005),
Appendix, p. 478.
CRS-6
Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) grants, which provide assistance to fire
departments for hiring personnel.24 The House Appropriations Committee
recommends $600 million for firefighter assistance, including $550 million for fire
grants and $50 million for SAFER Act grants. The committee does not agree with the
Administration’s proposal to shift the program’s priority to terrorism or to limit the
list of eligible activities. The following table compares funding for FY2003 through
FY2005 with the FY2006 budget request and DHS appropriations bill (H.R. 2360).
The House Appropriations Committee recommends a total of $3.19 billion for
federal homeland security assistance, a reduction of $420 million from FY2005
funding.25
Table 1. FY2005-FY2006 Federal Homeland Security Assistance
(Amounts in millions of dollars)
FY2006
FY2006
FY2003
FY2004
FY2005
Budget
House
Program
Approps
Approps
Approps
Request
(H.R. 2360)
State Homeland Security
Grant Program
1,870
1,700
1,100
1,020
750
Urban Area Security Initiative
800
725
1,200
1,020
1,215
Targeted Infrastructure
Protection
—
—
—
600
—
Law Enforcement Terrorism
Prevention Program
—
400
400
[408]26
400
Critical Infrastructure
Protection
200
—
—
—
—
Assistance to Firefighters
750
750
715
500
600
Emergency Management
Performance Grants
170
180
180
170
180
Citizen Corps Programs
30
40
15
50
40
Total
3,820
3,795
3,610
3,360
3,185
Source: P.L. 107-117; P.L. 107-206; P.L. 108-7; P.L. 108-11; P.L. 108-90; P.L. 108-334; OMB, FY2006
Budget, Appendix, p. 478; and House Appropriation Committee tables of Mar. 15, 2005 accompanying H.R.
2360.
Initially, following the September 2001 terrorist attacks, there may have been
a need for a significant amount of funding for state and local homeland security.
Some may argue, however, that now there is only a need to maintain state and local
24 This information provided by Len Kruger, Specialist in Science and Technology,
Research, Science, and Industry Division, Congressional Research Service.
25 House Appropriations Committee Homeland Security tables of Mar. 15, 2005
accompanying H.R. 2360.
26 This amount is not included in the total and is derived from the 20% of SHSGP and UASI
to be used for law enforcement terrorism prevention activities.
CRS-7
homeland security programs and activities. Nevertheless, some may argue that the
initial attempt to create a base amount of homeland security funding may have been
inadequate. As an example, states have identified a need for additional funding for
interoperable communications systems. Additionally, the reduction of funding may
impair state and local attempts to meet the National Preparedness Goal’s national
priorities of implementing the National Incident Management System (NIMS) and
National Response Plan (NRP); expanding regional homeland security collaboration;
implementing the Interim National Infrastructure Protection Plan; strengthening
homeland security information sharing and collaboration capabilities; strengthening
chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosive (CBRNE) detection,
response, and decontamination capabilities; and strengthening medical surge and
mass prophylaxis capabilities.27
Determining State and Local Homeland Security Risk
Assessment Factors
Since DHS has yet to allocate funding to states and localities based on risk,
another state and local homeland security issue remains: what risk factors to use in
determining the allocation of federal homeland security assistance. The methods of
threat and vulnerability assessment suggest a variety of factors which could be
employed in devising a risk-based funding formula for allocating homeland security
assistance to states and localities. In considering such factors, however, Congress
will be faced with a question of what criteria to use when assessing potential formula
risk factors or what factors to direct DHS to consider. Risk factors include threats,
the entity threatened, and the consequences of the threat to the specified entity. For
a risk factor to be a feasible variable in a statutory risk-based formula, it would need
to satisfy the following criteria:28
(1) Validity. A factor and its associated formula indicator are valid only to the
extent that they reflect the concept to which they are intended to refer.
(2) Relevance. A factor and its associated formula indicator are relevant only
to the extent that a clear, logical relationship exists between them and what is to be
measured.
(3) Reliability. Data for the factor must come from a source that Congress, the
executive branch, and grant recipients believe to be reliable. For example,
population data from the U.S. Census Bureau are generally regarded as reliable and
are used in a variety of formulas for allocating aid grants.
(4) Timeliness. Data for allocating grants should be reasonably up to date so
that the grant allocation formula can reasonably represent an eligible recipient’s
27 Interim National Preparedness Goal (Washington: Mar. 2005), pp. 9-15.
28 Criteria for selecting appropriate quantitative indicators were discussed by Raymond A.
Bauer, Social Indicators (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1966). Also see Anona Armstrong,
“Difficulties of Developing and Using Social Indicators to Evaluate Government Programs:
A Critical Review,” paper presented at the 2002 Australasian Evaluation Society
Conference, Nov. 2002, Wollongong, Australia.
CRS-8
current need for assistance. Thus, data that are regularly updated and reported are
preferable to data that are collected irregularly.
(5) Availability. Data necessary to the factor’s use as a formula variable should,
arguably, be readily and publicly available. Data that have been classified by the
federal government would fail to satisfy this criterion, since they are not available for
the states and localities — unless the states and localities were to have personnel with
security clearances and DHS made this classified information available for review.
Examples of possible risk assessment factors include threats, homeland security
capabilities, population factors, critical infrastructure assets, and transportation
assets, among other factors. None of the possible risk factors can be assessed
individually. To accurately evaluate the risk assessment factors, one would need to
determine the threat to population factors, critical infrastructure, transportation, or
other factors, and determine the consequences of such a threat. Additionally, the
homeland security capabilities needed to prevent, respond to, and recover from
terrorist attacks (and natural and technical disasters) would need to be assessed.
Two previously mentioned bills in the 109th Congress, H.R. 1544 and S. 21,
propose that ODP use risk factors in determining state and locality homeland security
assistance.
H.R. 1544, passed by the House on May 12, 2005, proposes to establish a First
Responder Grants Board that would evaluate and prioritize state homeland security
applications based on threats of terrorism to the agriculture, food, banking, and
chemical industries; the defense industrial base; emergency services; energy;
government facilities; postal, shipping, public health, health care, information
technology, telecommunications, and transportation systems; water; dams;
commercial facilities; and national monuments and icons. The Board would also
consider the following types of threats: biological, nuclear, radiological, incendiary,
chemical, explosive, suicide bombers, and cyber. Additionally, the Board would
consider specific threats to population (including transient, commuting, or tourist),
and greater weight would be given to specific and credible terrorism threats. H.R.
1544 proposes to allocate total federal homeland security assistance appropriations
based on the First Responder Grants Board’s evaluation and prioritization of
homeland security assistance applications and the DHS Secretary’s discretion.29
S. 21, reported by the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
Committee on April 12, 2005, proposes to allocate 30% of total appropriations for
a new grant program (Threat-Based Homeland Security Grant Program) to major
metropolitan regions with the following risk criteria: target of prior terrorist attack;
has had a higher Homeland Security Advisory System (HSAS) threat level than the
nation as a whole; large population or high population density; high threat and risk
related to critical infrastructure; international border or coastline; bordering at-risk
29 H.R. 1544, Sec. 3.
CRS-9
sites or activities in a nearby jurisdiction; unmet essential first responder capabilities;
and any other threat factors as determined by the DHS Secretary.30
Similarly, S. 21 proposes to allocate 30% of total appropriations for the new
Threat-Based Homeland Security Grant Program to states according to the following
risk criteria: target of prior terrorist attack within or in part of state; state has had a
higher Homeland Security Advisory System Threat level than the nation as whole;
percent of state’s population residing in metropolitan statistical areas (as defined by
the Office of Management and Budget); threat and risk related to critical
infrastructure; international border or coastline; bordering at-risk sites or activities
in a nearby jurisdiction; unmet essential first responder capabilities; and any other
threat factors as determined by the DHS Secretary.31
The remaining 40% of total appropriations would be allocated as a guaranteed
base amount to each state: either 0.55% of total appropriations for the Threat-Based
Homeland Security Grant Program or a sliding-scale guaranteed amount based on
each state’s population and population density.32
Because of the aforementioned risk factor criterion of “availability,” Congress
may not be in a position to accurately determine specific risk assessment factors. But
because of Congress’s oversight responsibilities, it may want to review DHS’s risk
assessment methodology and risk-based distribution formulas. The oversight could
include a review of weights given to risk factors, threats to key assets and critical
infrastructure, and plausible consequences of identified threats. The oversight could
ensure that DHS considers risk factors which affect rural areas as well as urban areas.
Homeland Security Equipment Standards
Another state and local homeland security issue concerns equipment standards.
On December 17, 2003, the President issued Homeland Security Presidential
Directive-8 (HSPD-8). Among other things, HSPD-8 directs the DHS Secretary, in
coordination with state and local officials, to establish and implement procedures for
developing and adopting first responder equipment standards that support a national
preparedness capability.33 DHS, however, has so far issued standards only for two
first responder equipment categories: personal protective gear, and radiation and
nuclear detection equipment.34
30 S. 21, Sec. 4.
31 S. 21, Sec. 4.
32 S. 21, Sec. 4.
33 U.S. President, Office of Homeland Security, “Homeland Security Presidential Directive-
8: National Preparedness,” Homeland Security Presidential Directive, Dec. 17, 2003,
available at [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/12/20031217-6.html], visited
June 7, 2005.
34 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office for Domestic Preparedness, “Emergency
and Disasters: First Responder Standards,” available at [http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/
display?theme=63&content=3294], visited May 25, 2005.
CRS-10
Presently, DHS has not provided standards for any other type of first responder
equipment. A report prepared for the Oklahoma City National Memorial Institute for
the Prevention of Terrorism and the Department of Justice recommends that the
federal government establish first responder equipment standards to assist in the
nation’s preparedness for terrorist attacks.35 In February 2003, The National Task
Force on Interoperability, a task force composed of representatives from professional
emergency responder and government personnel associations, recommended the
establishment of standards for interoperable communications. In a report on
interoperable communications, the task force stated that the use of standards for
equipment and software might alleviate many of the interoperability problems faced
by emergency responders, and state and local governments.36
In the FY2005 HSGP guidance, DHS provides an AEL that categorizes which
equipment states and localities are authorized to purchase. The list, however, does
not identify standards for equipment selection.37 H.R. 1544 and S. 21 either require
a determination of the need for equipment standards or require DHS to provide
information to states and localities on voluntary standards.
The lack of equipment standards may result in states and localities purchasing
equipment which does not meet their homeland security needs. It may also result in
states and localities purchasing equipment that is not compatible with other
jurisdictions’ equipment. The need for multiple jurisdictions to use the same
equipment or compatible equipment might become evident if multiple jurisdictions
were to respond jointly to a homeland security emergency.
State Homeland Security Strategies
On May 17, 2005, IACP released a press statement 38 critical of The National
Homeland Security Strategy.39 The press release charged that the current strategy is
flawed because it was developed federally — by federal departments and agencies
35 Hicks and Associates, Inc., Project Responder: Emergency Responders Needs, Goals, and
Priorities, Mar. 1, 2003, p. 12, available only to [http://www.llis.dhs.gov] members at
[http://www.llis.dhs.gov/member/secure/detail.cfm?content_id=6541], visited May 25,
2005.
36 The National Task Force on Interoperability, Why Can’t We Talk?: Working Together to
Bridge the Communications Gap to Save Lives, Feb. 1, 2003, p. 54, available only to
[http://www.llis.dhs.gov] members at [http://llis.dhs.gov/members/secure/
detail.cfm?content=6591], visited May 25, 2005.
37 Fiscal Year 2005 Homeland Security Grant Program: Program Guidelines and
Application Kit (Washington: Nov. 2004).
38 International Association of Chiefs of Police, From Hometown Security to Homeland
Security, press release, May 17, 2005, available at [http://www.theiacp.org/documents/
index.cfm?fuseaction=document&document_id=686], visited May 26, 2005.
39 Office of Homeland Security, The National Homeland Security Strategy (Washington:
July 2002), available at [http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?content=157], available at
[http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/07/20020716-2.html], visited May 26,
2005.
CRS-11
— instead of nationally — by all levels of government (local, tribal, state, and
federal).
A federally developed homeland security strategy, which does not reflect the
advice, expertise, or consent of public safety organizations at levels of government
other than federal, could be viewed as overly instructive and cumbersome, and
possibly impractical. The IACP advocates solving the problem by adopting a
national, rather than a federal, approach to future homeland security planning and
strategy development.
The National Homeland Security Strategy was developed by the Office of
Homeland Security, with post-development comments by advisory panels and
working groups.40 The advisory panels and working groups consisted of members
of the state, local, and tribal public safety community; but some have observed that
this community had little impact on policy development. Since the release of the
strategy, DHS has sought continued input from citizens, the public safety community,
and state and local officials. The input, however, has been confined to comments on
already developed policies and strategies. Observers note that the lack of greater
state and local input seems to have contributed to a strategy which fails to reflect
national homeland security needs, vulnerabilities, and risks.41 Furthermore, as with
the proposed reduction in federal homeland security assistance funding, a national
homeland security strategy which suffers from deficient state and local governments’
input may result in their failing to meet the National Preparedness Goal’s national
priorities.
State and Local Official Security Clearances42
Most information DHS provides to state and local government officials is
unclassified.43 Nevertheless, these officials might need some access to classified
information, for example, “real time” intelligence information concerning terrorism
threats, to adequately plan, coordinate, and execute homeland security activities.
Presently, about 325 state and local government officials possess DHS-
sponsored security clearances, and 250 state and local government officials are in the
process of receiving DHS-sponsored security clearances. DHS continues to
processes additional clearances for state, local, territorial, and tribal officials whose
requests are submitted through their states’ Office of Homeland Security. One mayor
from New York State has a DHS-sponsored security clearance, and the State of
40 Ibid.
41 From Hometown Security to Homeland Security, press release, May 17, 2005.
42 For further information on state and local officials’ security clearances, contact Fred
Kaiser, Specialist in American National Government, Government and Finance Division,
Congressional Research Service, at 7-8682.
43 Letter from Michael Cappannari, Legislative Assistant, Office of Legislative Affairs, U.S.
Department of Homeland Security, to Fred Kaiser, Specialist in American National
Government, Government and Finance Division, Congressional Research Service, June 3,
2005.
CRS-12
Hawaii has recently submitted clearance requests for four mayors. DHS states that
no other mayors have requested DHS-sponsored security clearances. Every
Governor, however, is granted a security clearance after signing a non-disclosure
agreement (Special Form-312).44
In addition to DHS, several other federal departments and agencies provide
security clearances to state and local officials. The Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI) provides numerous state and local law enforcement officials with security
clearances. State and local officials may also possess security clearances provided
by the Department of Defense, as a result of military (Reserves and National Guard)
service.
While hundreds of state and local officials have federally sponsored security
clearances, DHS is unable to provide an accurate number of them.45 This limited and
uncertain number of state and local officials with security clearances might affect the
ability of DHS (or other federal departments and agencies) to provide classified
information to states and localities. They, in turn, might not be able to adequately
prepare for, respond to, and recover from terrorist attacks without access to classified
information. Additionally, states and localities might not be able to coordinate with
other government entities (federal or state and local) if information cannot be shared
due to a lack of security clearances.
Security clearances are a problem not only for state and local officials, but also,
according to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), for port security
officials. GAO reported in April 2005 that port security officials are having
difficulties getting homeland security information due to delays in obtaining security
clearances. Delays, as determined by GAO, have occurred because U.S. Coast Guard
field representatives did not know that the Coast Guard was responsible for
contacting non-federal port security officials concerning security clearances, and
Coast Guard field offices were not tracking submitted port security officials’ security
clearance requests.46
44 Ibid.
45 Ibid.
46 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Maritime Security: New Structures Have
Improved Information Sharing, but Security Clearance Processing Needs Further Attention,
GAO-05-394, Apr. 2005, p. 27, available at [http://www.gao.gov], visited June 7, 2005.